Undivided Jerusalem

Gershom Gorenberg notes the tension between Bill Clinton's stance on Jerusalem and Hillary Clinton's embrace of silly agitprop.

Now, of course, I don't think anyone really believes that she takes a different view of this question. The problem, though, is that while she thinks pandering in this kind of way to hardliner sentiment will help her get elected, it will also make it quite a bit harder to govern if she ever wants to get involved in peace process matters. This kind of rhetoric makes a difference.

Comments

That was an exceptional piece, and well worth a read.

I think the bottom line is that Hillary considers "an undivided Jerusalem" as code for "hey, I'm totally pro-Israel!" rather than an actual policy prescription.

Gorenberg is surely right that it's outdated code. But how many American Jews are really up to speed on the current state of affairs in Jerusalem, I wonder?

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 9:23 AM

it will also make it quite a bit harder to govern if she ever wants to get involved in peace process matters. This kind of rhetoric makes a difference.

Well, not really, not if she ditches this bit of rhetoric once she takes office (as, well, multiple presidents before her have done when it came to pandering on this precise issue, including the Billster). Gorenberg's advice to her on this is certainly worth taking, and it's fine for people to call her out for pandering, but let's not paint it as being more important than it actually is.

Posted by Haggai | October 4, 2007 9:28 AM

It's perfectly clear that all Hillary has cared about for the last ten years is being elected President, and she will say or do anything to cross that finish line. Why the media refuses to report about this (in the manner that they do -- fairly -- to Romney, for example) is a mystery.

Posted by right | October 4, 2007 9:52 AM

it will also make it quite a bit harder to govern if she ever wants to get involved in peace process matters. This kind of rhetoric makes a difference.

I agree with Haggai - it won't and it doesn't.

Presidential candidates and party nominees have been promising to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for years. Obviously, no President has done such a thing and obviously no candidate or nominee has suffered electorally or financially for the failure to live up to that specific promise - just like almost all of the other promises politicians make and then subsequnetly fail to deliver.

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 4, 2007 10:08 AM

Not only are they not ashamed, but they are proud. They likely feel they are the only ones that can protect the U.S. and resent mightly, anyone who disagrees with their philosophy and methodes in any and all ways.

Posted by ET | October 4, 2007 10:12 AM

right said:

It's perfectly clear that all Hillary has cared about for the last ten years is being elected President, and she will say or do anything to cross that finish line. Why the media refuses to report about this (in the manner that they do -- fairly -- to Romney, for example) is a mystery.

Actually, Hillary's "ambition" has gotten quite a bit of coverage. There have been entire books written on the subject. Where have you been, right? And what are these stories about Romney's ambition of which you speak? All that aside, isn't a bit ridiculous to suggest that there is some kind of news in the fact that a person running for president has a secret desire to be president?

Also, I believe ET is posting to the wrong thread.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 4, 2007 10:50 AM

YOUR candidate is a craven panderer. Only MY candidate is a person of deep convictions!

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 11:01 AM

Left wing appeasers like Gorenberg will be the demise of the State of Israel.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12142.htm

Posted by SLC | October 4, 2007 11:19 AM

Given that there's a perfectly respectable interpretation of "undivided Jerusalem", how is "I suspect, however, that you wrote what you did because advisers believe that you need to support an outdated position in order to win Jewish support" not simply mind-reading? Esp. since the only source for the quote that I can find is that unofficial justhillary blog. If she uses this formulation anywhere without clarification I'll be unhappy, but for the moment the attention paid to this seems out of proportion.

MY: "Now, of course, I don't think anyone really believes that she takes a different view of this question."

Umm, who's "anyone" here?

Posted by rilkefan | October 4, 2007 5:31 PM

"Left wing appeasers like Gorenberg will be the demise of the State of Israel."

Glad to see we agree on something, SLC.

However, the referenced link is to an incredibly bizarre rant that intimates - scratch that, explicitly SAYS - that Bush AND Olmert are going to "dismantle Israel" for the benefit of Hamas, Hizballah and Iran.

I mean, really...that is paranoia taken to clinical dimensions requiring immediate remanding to a mental institution on the grounds of public safety...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 4, 2007 9:12 PM